ORDER 1. Brief facts of the case is that, appellant has assailed the impugned order No. MJ/CEO/12/3/20012 dated 26th June, 2012 on the ground that appellant is the owner of the building wherein part of the building was already raised and was in existence since long and rest of the construction has been raised after obtaining the proper permission as appellant was in dire need of the accommodation , after completing all the necessary formalities for obtaining the permission, the authorities were pleased enough to accord permission in favour of the appellant. Permission granted by the respondent as per No. 1655/BS/10 dated 31.3.2011 as well as ownership papers enclosed as Annexure-"B" and Annexure "c". 2. Impugned notice appears to be a show cause notice and in fact was never served upon the appellant and has no knowledge about the same prior to the impugned order. The impugned order deserves to be set aside. No action under section 7 (3) can be initiated by any authority constituted under section 3 read with section 7(1) and (2) of the Act unless an opportunity of being heard is afforded to the person against whom the action is purposed to be initiated. Impugned order does not describe the exact spot/location of the property. Notice is stereo typed one and only repeating the language of control of Building Operation Act. Impugned notice smacks of arbitrariness and mechanical exercise of the powers on the part of the authorities in order to harass and humiliate the appellant. 3. Order impugned is patently illegal and vague and the same does not satisfy which part of the construction is bad which effects the plan development of the City and contravenes shows regulations. Respondent has filed its objections in the shape of written arguments. Para-4 and para-5 of the objections are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: Para 4. -- - That the appellant has covered more area than permitted by JMC, thus the appellant has committed violation of permission granted by Jammu Municipal Corporation. The appellant has violated the provisions of J&K Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 and J&K Control of Building Operations Regulation, 1998. The appellant has made following violations. These are: S.No. Particulars As per permission As per site Quantum of violation In sft. %age 1. Plot area 669 Sft. 2. Coverage a) Ground floor. 501.5 Sft. 669 Sft. 167.5 Sft. 100% b) First Floor 501.5 Sft. The appellant has made following violations. These are: S.No. Particulars As per permission As per site Quantum of violation In sft. %age 1. Plot area 669 Sft. 2. Coverage a) Ground floor. 501.5 Sft. 669 Sft. 167.5 Sft. 100% b) First Floor 501.5 Sft. 669 Sft. 167.5 Sft. 100% 3. Front set back Court Nil 100% 100% b) Rear set back Yard Yard Nil 100% 100% c) side set back Planning Nil 100% 100% Other side 4. a) Land Use Residential Under construction b) Height 40'-0" `33.0" Nil Nil c) FAR 224.8 300 75.2 33.45% 5. That the total violation committed by the appellant is as under: Total plot area -- 669 Sft. Violation at ground floor -- 167.5 Sft Violation at first floor. -- 167.5 Sft. Violation at second floor. -- 167.5 Sft. Total violation. -- 502.5 Sft. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed the counter objection wherein it has been stated that appellant had raised the construction after seeking the proper permission from the respondent for residential purpose and house is one of the basic need of the family and most of the family devote life time saving. Moreover no prior notice was served upon the appellant. Thus appellant has been denied the opportunity of being heard. Moreover, there is no allegation against the appellant that public safety has been put into danger in any manner and no inconvenience has been caused to any one by raising residential building by the appellant. Appellant has kept the provision of air and light by maintaining sanctity of the permission in case titled BOCA v. Jyoti Singh. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that" It is not the question of construction which intends to decide whether it falls within the ambit of minor or major violation. It is the violation of permissible land use, height and set back etc which the appellant has maintained. 5. I have heard and perused the file. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that appellant is in possession of the property at Chand Nagar Jammu and has raised the construction after seeking proper permission from the respondent and has maintained the Court yard but the same is covered with a fiber sheet in order to protect family from vagaries of seasons i.e. rain water and solar heat. 6. 6. Moreover in support of the arguments, learned counsel or the appellant has referred a judgment reported in (2005) Supreme Court Cases 110 : 2004 (2) JKJ HC-443 (DB) Kewal Krishan Gupta v. J&K Special Tribunal and others. Para 16 is reported hereunder: 16. Finally, apart from these reasons for which the impugned judgment is liable to be faulted, our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant to notification dated 9.8.2004, SRO- 263 [Refer 2004 (2) JKS JK-398] issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir by which the master plan for Jammu; 2021 has been published. Paragraph 6.9.11 at page 81 of the said master plan specifically provides that B.C. road area is earmarked as special area to be developed as a mixed used zone having residential, commercial, light industry, institutional and other uses. The phase of rapid growth of industrial development also make it unnecessary for permitting demolition of the structure even if it be in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the zone provisions in the previous master plan. Considered from all angles, it appeared that the High Court need not have taken an activist role in directing demolition of the offending structure which had been permitted to be compounded by the competent authority namely, the Tribunal. 7. Simple allegation is that the appellant has covered the whole of the plot area but there is no encroachment on the private land or public land but appellant has constructed the residential house for family need and violations shown against the appellant is 502.5 Sft. and same may kindly be compounded and appellant is ready to pay the compounding fee. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the appeal of the appellant be dismissed with heavy costs as the appellant has raised the construction beyond the sanctioned plan. There no violation in the height of the building. No purpose would be served in case appeal is declined except putting the appellant in unnecessarily harassment and causing loss to the appellant. Construction of a building can not be completed in a over night, had the respondent taken an appropriate steps at the very beginning, this situation would have never raised. 9. No purpose would be served in case appeal is declined except putting the appellant in unnecessarily harassment and causing loss to the appellant. Construction of a building can not be completed in a over night, had the respondent taken an appropriate steps at the very beginning, this situation would have never raised. 9. Keeping in view the facts, the instant appeal is allowed and the case of the appellant is compounded @ Rs.40 per sft i.e. 502.5X40= Rs.20,100.00 . Appellant is directed to deposit the compounding fee Of Rs. 20,100.00 into Govt. Treasury within a period of two months failing which respondents are at liberty to take appropriate steps against the appellant. Record of the JMC be sent back alongwith a copy of the order. File be consigned to records after due completion.